Blogs

Events

Store

Month Archives: August 2013

by
Family Research Council

August 28, 2013

Fascinating new research from University of Helsinki researchers shows that a fetus in utero can hear sounds outside the womb during the last trimester of pregnancy. These children were found to recognize, after birth, a word that had been repeated to them while in the womb. (So: Watch your mouth, think before you speak, etc.) Read on!

It may seem implausible that fetuses can listen to speech within the womb, but the sound-processing parts of their brain become active in the last trimester of pregnancy, and sound carries fairly well through the mother’s abdomen. “If you put your hand over your mouth and speak, that’s very similar to the situation the fetus is in,” says cognitive neuroscientist Eino Partanen of the University of Helsinki. “You can hear the rhythm of speech, rhythm of music, and so on.”

… Partanen and his team decided instead to outfit babies with EEG sensors to look for neural traces of memories from the womb. “Once we learn a sound, if it’s repeated to us often enough, we form a memory of it, which is activated when we hear the sound again,” he explains. This memory speeds up recognition of sounds in the learner’s native language and can be detected as a pattern of brain waves, even in a sleeping baby.

The team gave expectant women a recording to play several times a week during their last few months of pregnancy, which included a made-up word, “tatata,” repeated many times and interspersed with music. Sometimes the middle syllable was varied, with a different pitch or vowel sound. By the time the babies were born, they had heard the made-up word, on average, more than 25,000 times. And when they were tested after birth, these infants’ brains recognized the word and its variations, while infants in a control group did not, Partanen and colleagues report online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Babies who had heard the recordings showed the neural signal for recognizing vowel and pitch changes in the pseudoword, and the signal was strongest for the infants whose mothers played the recording most often. They were also better than the control babies at detecting other differences in the syllables, such as vowel length. “This leads us to believe that the fetus can learn much more detailed information than we previously thought,” Partanen says, and that the memory traces are detectable after birth.

Before you rush out for headphones wide enough to fit your expectant abdomen or decide whether your child should learn Spanish or Arabic first, keep in mind that it’s not clear that “stimulation beyond normal sounds of everyday life offers any long-term benefits to healthy babies.” These findings may, however, have implications for treating children “at risk for dyslexia or auditory processing disorders.”

by
Rob Schwarzwalder

August 26, 2013

The abortion industry recently has suffered a series of legal and legislative setbacks. From mandatory ultrasounds to fetal pain bills to entirely reasonable clinic health and safety regulations, the womb is a bit less unsafe for thousands of unborn children. Here are summaries of some recent wins for life and human dignity:

According to one review, “at least 24 Planned Parenthood sites have closed so far in 2013. This number includes 3 surgical abortion clinics, 3 clinics that dispensed abortion pills, and 19 offices that referred for abortions.”

The pro-abortion-on-demand Guttmacher Institute reports that during “the first six months of 2013, states enacted 106 provisions related to reproductive health and rights; issues related to abortion, family planning funding and sex education were significant flashpoints in several legislatures”.

“The North Carolina Department of Health has suspended the license of Femcare, an abortion clinic in Asheville. That marks the 42nd abortion clinic to close so far this year, eclipsing the 24 that closed during all of 2012.”

The closures of dozens of abortion clinics nationwide means that more persons bearing God’s image will enjoy the warmth of a mother’s embrace. The value of the person is not determined by a cost-benefit analysis but by the decision of her eternal Creator to give her the gift of life. Thus, the economic consequences of abortion are of vastly less importance than the evil of abortion itself, both to the unborn and their mothers. Yet it is undeniable that abortion has contributed materially to the weakening of the U.S. economy. It’s not very often that we can rejoice at the growing demise of an industry or the closure of job-producing businesses, but if there were ever reasons - both moral and economic - for such rejoicing, here they are.

by
Family Research Council

August 23, 2013

In a few months there will once again be the usual chatter regarding the debt ceiling, fiscal cliffs, and heightened rhetoric as interest groups vie for Federal money. The debates often center around the dollars with little to no regard for the actual problems those dollars are supposed to solve.

Consider “food stamps” which now come in the form of a debit card. If one has a debate about whether or not the hungry should be fed, virtually all of us agree that they should. We may disagree on who is actually in need and how they should best receive aid, but we agree that they should be fed. Advocates for increasing federal spending on food aid will argue that the economy has caused many more people to be without jobs and that these people need help. If a policy maker even so much as mentions cutting a dime from such programs he will be immediately vilified by many as “uncompassionate” at best, or “evil” at worst.

My own experience argues for a cautious approach, and why we need to be able to have discussions that go beyond mere rhetoric.

At a previous job, our rear parking lot was near some woods that were often filled with homeless people. They frequently came to us for water and my colleagues and I spoke with many of them on a semi-regular basis. Some of them were genuinely needy, while others stated that they liked being homeless because they were free from responsibility. Many of them had cell phones; all were well-clothed.

Over time I noticed a significant number of them asking for one of my employees. When they asked for him, they did so usually with an appearance of deep concern and seemed to want to see him immediately. I soon discovered the sad reason for their urgency. My employee would take their food stamp debit cards and exchange them at something like a 50% rate for booze. In other words for a $200 card my employee would buy roughly $100 in alcohol for the homeless and then use the card to purchase groceries for himself or others. This system was very efficient and profitable for all parties involved. The homeless were able to continue their habit using government funds and my employee was able to make a 50% return on investment for his trouble.

You may think this kind of thing is rare or hard to do. It is not. This “ring” of fraud is operated largely in the open and there was very little that could be done to stop it. If I were a legislator and suggested there is waste and fraud in the food stamp program, I would be labeled as uncaring.

For the record, I believe strongly in giving to charity and regularly give a portion of my income away. But I also believe in responsibility and stewardship. God has called us to love our neighbors and give to the needy while at the same time wisely managing what he has given us.

It is a wonderful thing that Americans care for the poor, and Christians have a special duty to help them. However, we should not allow that care to cause us to be blind to systematic abuses that actually hurt those the system is intended to help. Love demands that we provide for those around us, but wisdom demands that we not give to those who wantonly throw away what we are entrusting to them. Good stewardship requires honesty and honesty requires us to admit that good intentions are not enough.

by
Krystle Gabele

August 22, 2013

So, the atheist advocacy group Freedom From Religion Foundation has been granted a tax exemption - as a religious organization. Who says politics can’t be funny?!

“Religion,” if reduced to being sort of a once-a-week part of one’s life, a habit akin to changing the oil or getting a haircut, is fraudulent. Paul describes its practitioners “as holding to a form of Godliness, although they have denied its power” (II Timothy 3:5). Notre Dame sociologist Christian Smith characterizes this illusive faith as only “moralistic, therapeutic deism.”

Yet religion properly understood is honoring to our Creator and Redeemer. “Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this,” writes James. “To visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world” (James1:27). Put another way, compassionate acts and pure hearts reflect true faith in a living Savior.

Family Research Council makes a strong case for the importance of adoption, and our Church Ministries department works actively with thousands of churches around the country to build strong families. Many Christian organizations are serving to the same ends.

In an era when atheists are considered “religious” and some groups want atheist “chaplains” in the Armed Forces, we’re thankful to stand with you in advancing faith, family, freedom and hope for those most in need.

by
Robert Morrison

August 21, 2013

I confess that Charles Lane, an editorialist with the Washington Post, is one of my favorite liberals. He touched my heart last year when he came to Rick Santorum’s defense. Much of the leftwing blogosphere erupted in hoots and catcalls on learning that Rick Santorum and his wife had brought home the body of their stillborn child so that his brothers and sisters could say goodbye.

They all thought Santorum was a nutcase, a wingnut, for that act of tenderness. No, wrote Charles Lane. And he penned a column about the death of his own beloved son and wrote that he wished he had let his other children say goodbye. I have rarely been so touched. When I think of Lincoln’s beautiful phrase—the better angels of our nature—I think of Charles Lane’s noble defense of Rick Santorum.

Even so, Charles Lane is a liberal and he does have the capacity to shock me. He was on the panel of Bret Baier’s Special Report on FOX News. Responding to the news that Sen. Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, but that his mother was an American citizen, Lane agreed with Charles Krauthammer that Cruz was eligible to run for President of the U.S. But then he added this stunning statement: What difference would it make if a president did have dual citizenship?

Granted, we are talking about Canada, here. Not Saudi Arabia or China. Canada is our loyal friend. When all domestic flights were grounded on that terrible September 11th, the Canadians welcomed thousands of stranded American air passengers into their homes. Moviegoers probably now know the story of the brave Canadian ambassador to Iran who, in 1979, helped a half dozen Americans escape that deranged country.

But, still. Canada is a foreign country with a rich and varied history. It is not our history. In truth, much of Canadian history was made in opposition to the United States. Start with the 25,000 Tories who fled America in the Revolution and went to Canada to maintain their allegiance to the Crown. We are observing the Bicentennial of the War of 1812. Canadians are celebrating their many land victories over the invading Yankees.

On a recent vacation to Niagara-on-the-Lake, my wife and I visited the home of Laura Secord. She is Canada’s heroine of that war. Hearing American soldiers in her front yard discussing plans to attack Fort George, this brave mother of six left her injured husband’s bedside and walked thirty-seven miles through a dark, snake-infested swamp to warn the British defenders of Canada. She is rightly regarded as their “Paul Revere.” Still, when my wife and I were invited to join the museum’s support group, Friends of Laura Secord, we demurred. “I have to say, we honor her courage, but we were on the American side of that fight.

Canada’s very unity, the Confederation of her provinces in 1867, was sparked by fears that the victorious Union in the American Civil War would take vengeance on British North America (as Canada was then known) for the role Britain played in helping the Southern rebels during the war.

Charles Lane doesn’t think it would matter that a U.S. President had dual citizenship. But Canada is still a monarchy. The Canadian Head-of-State is still the Queen. And it was not until 1982 that Canada was officially permitted to write her own laws without getting a sign-off from the British Parliament in Westminster.

Yes, Mr. Lane, it matters. We can love our neighbors in Canada. And I do. But we are Americans. We are the Great Republic. Or, at least we used to be.

by
Chris Gacek

August 20, 2013

According to Libby Nelson in the Politico, the Department of Education has just released a quadrennial report (“2011–12 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:12): Student Financial Aid Estimates for 2011–12”) analyzing the manner in which students are paying for college. Based on data from 2011-12 that uses a sample of more than 100,000 students (mostly undergrads), the report indicates that for the first time a majority – 57% — of undergraduates are receiving federal financial aid of some kind. Also, a higher proportion than ever are taking out loans. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan stated that “[i]n total, the number of Pell Grant recipients has increased more than 50 percent since 2008….” Pell grant spending has increased from $12.8 billion in 2007 to $35.6 billion in 2011.

So, just as national awareness of the harms of college debt have become more and more clear, students are becoming more indebted. According to Nelson, “About 41 percent of all undergraduates took out loans, up from 35 percent four years ago.” This is tragic.

President Obama is set to take a bus tour later this week to discuss holding down college costs. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem like anyone in Washington is discussing the promotion of alternate types of education (e.g., online) and alternate degree credentialing systems that could actually lower the cost of higher education. Lowering college costs will require unleashing market forces for a product that remains resistant to competitive forces. That has to change.

by
Rob Schwarzwalder

August 19, 2013

My friend Matt Schlapp’s bride Mercedes has written a lovely, humble, and gracious response to the recent Time Magazine cover story on joy-filled childless couples. Her op-ed is published in full below. Matt and Mercedes have five daughters, who are blessed to have them as Dad and Mom.

Mercedes makes the point that children are intrinsic to our human capital. FRC’s own Marriage and Religion Research Institute has documented this exact point.

Read a mom’s perspective on having and raising kids. It will remind you that having children creates a greater degree of joy, fulfillment, and gratitude than any restaurant, automobile, or vacation can ever even approximate.

MERCEDESSCHLAPP

Opt-In to Having Kids

By MERCEDESSCHLAPPAugust 16, 2013

I recently picked up a copy of Time Magazine where a couple lounged on the beach with smiles on their faces and the title read “Having it all without having children.” For a moment, I yearned for the days when my husband and I were kid-free and drinking a pina colada by the beach or poolside. Those days are temporarily over for us after deciding to be open to having children.

While childless couples are constantly asked, “Why they are NOT having children,” my husband and I are bombarded with a different set of questions: “Why would you have SOMANY?” or “Are you DONE having children?” We have five daughters ranging from the ages of 10 years to 18 months, and most people find it shocking that we are raising a big family, especially when the cost of children can be so expensive.

The constant judgment is difficult for all couples that struggle with the decision of whether or not to start a family. Of course, deciding whether or not to have children is a personal decision, but I would encourage couples to stay open to the idea that having a child or adopting provides both personal and societal benefits.

My couple friends who have decided not to have children argue that they lack maternal or paternal instincts. I am a perfect case study for the transition from no maternal instinct to the love of motherhood. I remember being one of those women who never imagined I would get married and have children. You ask any of my high school friends, and I would have been voted in the class to be the least likely to get married or have children.

My single focus of pursuing a successful career changed when I met my husband. He was from the Midwest where families are quite large, and he is one of four children. I warned him that I had no maternal instincts, but was open to having children. When my first daughter was born, she was placed in my arms, and I was changed forever. My need to protect and raise her to the best of my abilities became my top priority. Although my career was temporarily placed on hold, I had a new focus, which was to love this child unconditionally. All of our children were created out of such deep love between my husband and me, and each child has added so much to our lives.

Childless couples argue that children are expensive. They are right. The USDA Cost of Raising Child report stated that the price tag is $241,080 in 2012 dollars or an inflation-adjusted $301,970 by the time adulthood arrives. Those numbers are discouraging for couples that believe that they simply cannot afford a child, especially during these uncertain economic times. Sure, my husband and I may be working until we are 80 years old so we can pay for our children’s expenses; however the everyday smiles, hugs, conversations and memories with our children are priceless.

Although having children changes one’s career options, they teach parents to become better crisis managers, multi-taskers and effective leaders. Parents not only impact their children’s lives, but bring a different perspective to the workforce.

I understand that childrearing may not be for everyone. However, if I had not taken the risk of having children, I would have missed out on the greatest, most unexpected experience that has transformed my life and defines who I am today.

For a moment just think of how a child adds not only to a couple’s life, but what it means as an added value to our society.

We are seeing a steep decline in birthrates the United States partly due to an economic downturn, future financial uncertainty and fewer immigrants entering the country. Add to that women waiting longer to have children or not having them at all. This means the economic burden on a child born in 2015 will be nearly twice that of a child born in 1985, according to a University of Southern California study.

Our greatest investment for the United States is our children – the human capital and future innovators of our country. They are the next generation of workers, leaders and mothers and fathers who will define the future course of our nation.

A recent study also showed that an increasing number of women measured to have higher IQs are deciding not to have children. But what a benefit to our nation if women who are prepared and educated are able to pass along their foundation and knowledge to their children.

I know plenty of couples or single individuals who have chosen not to have children and are happy with their decision, but I will continue to encourage those who may be unsure of whether or not to take the giant leap of starting a family. I am the prime example of having a change of heart. Having children has been the best decision of our lives. While I may not be lying on the beach with my pina colada, I know that my husband and I are investing in our nation’s future.

by
Robert Morrison

August 16, 2013

My college friend sent me this article from the New York Times on the death from lung cancer of the eminent historian, Pauline Maier. Her passing is indeed a loss. I’m only one of thousands of readers who highly praise her study of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence. Her title for that valuable work was American Scripture

The Times’ headline announcing Prof. Maier’s (MAY-erz) passing is one of the strangest I’ve seen—historian who described Jefferson as ‘Overrated’… With that, and even acknowledging Prof. Maier’s stature, I take sharp issue.

We are so indebted to Thomas Jefferson we hardly know where to begin. For example, if you live in one of the states west of the Appalachians, you have never had a concern about your home state having lesser standing than one of the Original Thirteen. Your religious and civil liberties are the same as those Americans who hail from the Atlantic Seaboard.

We can say that now. It was by no means obvious in the eighteenth century—or in the seventeen centuries prior to 1776. In the course of human events, colonies were founded by Mother Countries. It would not have been out of line, therefore, if Illinois (and some thirty-six other “daughters” of the Original Thirteen) had been treated as colonies of the new American republic.

That the new states carved out of virgin territories in the west would be regarded as fully equal to the Original Thirteen is an amazing innovation in human history. Thomas Jefferson was a persistent driver of the idea that territories become fully equal states.

It is one of the things that makes America exceptional. It is why we became “an Empire for Liberty.” But we take it for granted.

Another example: Look at the news from Britain this summer: A royal baby was born in London. There’s a new law that says had Prince George been Princess Alexandra, this child would still be first in line to inherit the throne.

But why should the first-born inherit everything? Primogeniture. We hardly know the word. And that’s because Thomas Jefferson the reviser of Virginia’s laws abolished Primogeniture. And his example was carried across the country.

One of the reasons I think some of our best scholars view Jefferson as “overrated” may be because they underrate religious freedom. The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was introduced by Jefferson in Richmond in 1779 and carried through to final passage by his closest friend, James Madison, in 1786.

The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was and is a model for the world. Look at this morning’s headlines from Cairo, from Damascus, from Baghdad. Because these Muslim lands do not respect religious freedom, they are forever convulsed in “sectarian strife.” It’s as if Mideast Turmoil has been painted on our TV screens.

Our State Department did not share with Iraq or Afghanistan America’s own experience from Jefferson and Madison. Instead, we encouraged them to write constitutions that established Islamist states. And the violence we see is the inevitable result of that failure. The State Department treats religious freedom rather as the star on top of the Christmas tree—instead as the vital root system that is required for the tree to live.

I am especially indebted to Jefferson for an understanding of the right to life. His draft of the Declaration makes clear we are “Created equal” and “endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

For forty years, the elites in the United States have been denying the right to life. Roe v. Wade is based on the infamous lie that we do not know, can not know, when human life begins. Of course, we have known all along. That is why they must engage in “semantic gymnastics” to deceive people about the truth.

“The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government,” Jefferson wrote. And how do life and liberty relate? “The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time.”

Underrating Jefferson is part of the ongoing liberal project. If they can de-legitimize the Founding, they can persuade people to go along with their project of “fundamentally transforming” America.

The Founding Fathers were not gods. Nor were they even, pace Mr. Jefferson, “an assembly of demi-gods.” But they were determined to place this country, under God, on a firm foundation.

The Obama administration is trying to transform America with Obamacare, intentionally driving making us over into a socialist republic But they cannot even make their own machine work. That is why they have to grant innumerable waivers and delays. Some of the groups that most eagerly sought the re-election of this administration are the first to seek an escape—from Obamacare.

Abraham Lincoln did not underrate Jefferson. Nor did Lincoln undervalue the Declaration of Independence. Alerted to a credible assassination plot in February, 1861, the President-elect nonetheless insisted on appearing at Philadelphia’s Independence Hall on George Washington’s Birthday. He raised an American flag on that site and exclaimed, with uncharacteristic emotion:

I have never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence. (Great cheering.) I have often pondered over the dangers which were incurred by the men who assembled here and adopted that Declaration of Independence… It was not the mere matter of the separation of the colonies from the mother land; but something in that Declaration giving liberty, not alone to the people of this country, but hope to the world for all future time. (Great applause.) It was that which gave promise that in due time the weights should be lifted from the shoulders of all men, and that all should have an equal chance. (Cheers.) This is the sentiment embodied in that Declaration of Independence.

Now, my friends, can this country be saved upon that basis? If it can, I will consider myself one of the happiest men in the world if I can help to save it. If it can’t be saved upon that principle, it will be truly awful. But, if this country cannot be saved without giving up that principle–I was about to say I would rather be assassinated on this spot than to surrender it (Applause)…I have said nothing but what I am willing to live by, and, in the pleasure of Almighty God, die by.

Lincoln’s passion, the cause for which he was willing to die, should animate us. And it should persuade us not to underrate those Jeffersonian principles throughout our lives.

by
Family Research Council

August 15, 2013

Please take a look out our excellent lecture discussing the net value of a college education for all students in a world of economic uncertainty, heavy debt accumulation, and low-quality degrees. Our speaker is Dave Wilezol who co-authored Is College Worth It? with Bill Bennett. (Yes, that Bill Bennett.) Mr. Wilezol discusses a range of topics but focuses on the need for prospective college students to be hard-nosed about a number of factors that will determine whether a college degree is the best path for a person to take.

by
Peter Sprigg

August 15, 2013

Yet another Bible-believing member of the Air Force has come forward with a report of negative treatment—in this case, merely because he defended another Service member who had expressed opposition to homosexual “marriage.”

Air Force Senior Master Sergeant Phillip Monk told Todd Starnes of Fox News Radio that his openly lesbian commander at Lackland Air Force Base inSan Antonio,Texas had essentially forced him into taking leave rather than completing his assignment. (A Lackland spokesman denied that Monk was punished, insisting to Starnes that he was simply at the end of his assignment.)

Monk was caught in the middle of a situation which involved an instructor who was subjected to an investigation for having told trainees that he opposed homosexual “marriage.” Investigators sought to determine whether the unnamed instructor had slandered homosexuals and created a “hostile work environment.”

Monk’s job was to advise the commander on disciplinary action. According to Monk, however, the commander said from the outset that “we need to lop off the head of this guy.” Monk concluded that the instructor’s remarks were innocuous, and suggested instead that the incident could teach everyone—on both sides of the debate over homosexuality—about “tolerance” and “diversity.”

In the end, the instructor was disciplined with a “letter of counseling” in his official file. The commander, however, demanded to know from Monk “if you can see discrimination if somebody says that they don’t agree with homosexual marriage.” Monk refused to answer because, “As a matter of conscience I could not answer the question the way the commander wanted me to.” Instead, he “said that perhaps it would be best if he went on leave,” and the commander agreed.

Monk said to Starnes, “I’m told that members of the Air Force don’t have freedom of speech. They don’t have the right to say anything that goes against Air Force policy.” However, if the homosexual Air Force officer involved in this case thinks that “Air Force policy” requires rejecting the policy choice of three quarters of the States to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, she should think again.

In fact, she may need to be reminded of what the repeal of the 1993 law on homosexuality in the armed forces actually did and did not require. According to the 2010 report of the Pentagon’s Comprehensive Review Working Group (CRWG) on repeal, repeal was intended to move the military from a negative position on homosexuality to an officially neutral one—but not to one in which sexual orientation would become a protected category.

In fact, the CRWG said explicitly that “we do not [emphasis in the original] recommend that the Department of Defense place sexual orientation alongside race, color, religion, sex, and national origin” with respect to diversity programs, tracking, or Equal Opportunity complaints.

On the other hand, the CRWG noted the fears of some Service members that repeal “might limit their individual freedom of expression and free exercise of religion, or require them to change their personal beliefs about the morality of homosexuality.” The Pentagon sought to assuage those fears by preserving “existing policies regarding individual expression and free exercise of religion,” noting explicitly, “Service members will not be required to change their personal views and religious beliefs.” (Note: the passages on “Moral and Religious Concerns” and on “Equal Opportunity” excerpted above can be found on pages 134-138 of the report.)

The 2010 Congressional vote repealing the 1993 was premised upon these assurances—even though FRCand other pro-family groups warned at the time that they could not be relied upon. We predicted that pro-homosexual activists would demand that only pro-homosexual viewpoints be allowed in the military, and those predictions are now coming true.

If Congress and the Obama administration are unwilling to return to the higher standard of sexual conduct that prevailed until repeal took effect in 2011, they should at least insist that military commanders live up to the promises that were made during the repeal debate of 2010—that “Service members shall be evaluated only on individual merit, fitness, and capability,” and not on their religious convictions.

Download the Family Research Council report, “A Clear and Present Danger: The Threat to Religious Liberty in the Military.”